Polarization
I first heard the term "polarization" in the modern American context in a book The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America, by political analyst Ronald Brownstein, published in 2007. Again and again, Brownstein frets over important elections decided by "razor-thin margins". The lack of common ground, expressed by politcal-party loyalty and the absence of cross-voters in Congress, suggests deep divisions in the body-politic, although the voters don't like cross-overs by politicians who represent them.
Brownstein and others use terms like "disunity", "political strife", and "polarization" without conveying much understanding or sympathy for the issues that divide us, or attaching much intentionality or sincerity to them. How do we move our troubled nation forward if our leaders and intellectuals cannot address openly the different intentions and mentalities of the warring sides? How do we discuss productively ways to resolve the tensions and hostility? Maybe that kind of talk will lead to calls for a referendum, a formal division of the nation into new countries, and end of the United States as we know it. But maybe that is the next step. Thomas Jefferson himself said that a little revolution once in a while is a good thing. That's all a division would be.
What are the philosophical touchstones for each side? Can our leaders risk telling us which writer or philosopher gives them definition and intention? Our political parties come onto the voters like sales-personnel selling a get-rich-quick scheme. Don't they really need them to tell which direction they want to take the nation? Let the chips fall where they may.
Let us tap into the parties' preconceptions of things. Instead of wooing us with pipe-dreams, tell us about their mentors and historical heroes. Delineate the differences between Republican principles and Democrat principles. They would probably say "What would we want to do that for?" They assume the public wants a low-brow, unsophisticated understanding of governing.
If our political leaders will risk answering honestly, they will quote Vince Lombardi: "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." In doing so, they define the political game as little more than a short-term experience of being "better than," not "different from". We will not get very far is we only express political discontent in terms of an athletic contest.
Like the football team, the political party enjoys a celebratory supper or a consolation something-or-other. The politicians congratulate both teams for their efforts and say to the losers "Better luck next year!" because continuing the game is good for business—the politicians' business, anyway.
I don't think it is as good for our "business", of keeping alive the idealism, unity, and intentionality that has made this nation so great—not if it has to move forward in an environment poisoned by mutual hostlity and "policy-dysfunction". (Another Ronald Brownstein phrase).
Political competitors think like athletic competitors—in real time. No yesterday, no tomorrow, only right f——--g now! The players treat philosophical principles like trappings, what the film-director Alfred Hitchcock called a "Macguffin", just a meaningless prop along for the ride. The prediction of a win for one team spurs the other to greater effort to enable an upset victory.
For athletics, the ritual remains the same, from one year to the next. The old players move on with their lives, and let new players take to the field to answer the challenge. The terms of battle remain the same—the same rules, the same effort, skill, and heroism. Then, it's over! For the players, the main lingering memory is the injuries, which bother them for the rest of their lives. The rest of the ritual counts as hardly more than a Macguffin-fueled fantasy.
Business pursuits are more like ritual in the real-world. For confirmation of this truth, one only has to look at the stockholders and employees cheering at company meetings for Apple or Microsoft, or the employees at Space-X cheering at a launch-site. They count on victory for the sake of their jobs and the future of their pensions. If their companies loses out in this competition, they likely won't cheer much at an athletic contest, either.